Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his homelessness application or the priority‑need decision. We have not seen enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify our involvement. Mr X also has the right to appeal his homelessness decision to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that he has been homeless for six months and the Council has delayed decisions on his housing and review case. He says the Council has not issued a Relief Duty decision. Mr X also says the Council ignored his medical evidence when assessing priority need and did not contact him through the agreed channels. Mr X wants suitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council found him homeless and issued a relief duty, but it did not find him in priority need, so it had no duty to house him.
8. Mr X asked for a review under the Housing Act 1996, section 202. The Council processed the request and gave him the right to appeal to the County Court.
9. Upon Mr X’s request, the Council issued a Priority Need Review Decision. It considered the medical evidence and found Mr X was still not in priority need.
10. In February 2026, Mr X’s paralegal reported a deterioration in his health within 21 days of the non-priority decision and requested another review.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not reconsider a decision to decide whether it was right or wrong. Instead, we check whether the organisation followed the correct process when making its decision. If it did so, we cannot question the outcome, even if someone disagrees with it.
12. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
13. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest the Council acted incorrectly.

Remember tentative language rather than definitive no fault findings

The Council assessed his application and considered all the information he provided about his circumstances and needs. As there is nothing to suggest evidence of any procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision. The Council has explained and justified its decision in line with its published guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his homelessness or its priority need decision. There is not enough evidence of fault or enough injustice to justify an investigation. Mr X also has the right to appeal his homelessness decision to the County Court.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman